Post by @christina • Hey
We saw a gold rush last year with crazy multiples (as high as 15x!) for music publishing catalog deals set by Hipgnosis. Deals that make it very hard to se
Comments
- Cool
- i think that $2 billion should of been paid to @yoginth.lens and @lenstube so we can speed up development of artists not needing to sell their souls.
In August 2018, Brookfield also signed a 99-year lease on the financially troubled 666 Fifth Avenue skyscraper, of Donald Trump's son in law Jared Kushner.
- let's grow!
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- How's it going
- Good
- Some of the multiples being offered over the last couple of years are insane. One artist we had sight on sold up for 23X, which is insane.
There's been a lot of talk about this whole sector peaking, with much made of Hipgnosis supposedly not making any investments of late. There was a LOT of nuance to that story however, and on the whole I agree with your assessment that the appetite for investment in this space remains undiminished.
Thinking aloud, I suspect that streaming revenues in particular have shown themselves to be relatively bulletproof through economic downturns. People cancelled things like Netflix, but the average consumer just has one music streaming account, and they're unlikely to cut back on that. Ergo, the general revenues of perennial catalogue favourites remain solid - and so for investors, I'd imagine this makes it a relatively bouyant space to invest funds, compared to the sliding stocks of Big Tech et al.
One observation I would make though is that a lot of companies operating in this space are making much of what they can offer artists - telling them they can increase revenues etc. On the whole I'm finding that to be relatively hollow, because all ways to exploit the music *in the framework of the existant, traditional music industry* have been explored.
What that means, however, is that there is (IMO anyway) a huge opportunity to exploit master works etc via the creator economy and Web3. Simple examples would be sample packs of classic albums, derived from stems. Others would be on-chain remix opps in which artists could remix a track and release it, but with pre-defined splits on the track such that both original artist and remixer/sampler benefit accordingly.
To many this approach would be perceived as heresy, but this is the way things are going, and those rubicons must be crossed at some point.
- well, I'm neither @sameold.lens nor @motiveunknown.lens also I don't have any insights into the music industry (why are you commenting here, Carsten?).
anyway, I have read the article and the press release. what's interesting to me is, that they talk about "iconic" music rights. they list rights to artists that had their heyday in the 60s-80s. it seems to me that there aren't many artists around anymore that attract a wide range of listeners. ok, there's Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Kanye,... but the impression is, that since the 90s music has become more segmented (indie music became popular, all kinds of electronic music,...) and there are not many "iconic" artists and catalogs anymore.
so I'm wondering if Primary Wave and the like are operating in an old and dead industry. sure, they could buy rights to thousands of indie artists but is that the same? also how long can they milk the rights to those iconic catalogs? most people listening to those artists are probably between 50 and 80 years old. how many recordings will they still buy from their fave artists?
I could be totally wrong and don't have a clue.